Here, Plaintiff alleges that Rev. Kim misused or misappropriated church funds and property in a variety of ways, including forging checks, paying his personal utility bills with Church funds, and utilizing Tipton [the financial secretary] as a means to convert church donations....

Before the Court can determine whether Rev. Kim is liable to Plaintiff under any claim, it would first have to determine whether Rev. Kim violated the rules set forth in The Book of Discipline and whether the [United Methodist Church's] policy and polity permitted Rev. Kim to engage in certain financial and managerial practices....

Moreover, Plaintiff’s sought relief through the UMC’s process, wherein Plaintiff’s representatives at the Church met with Superintendent Plumstead.... Plumstead met with the Church’s Staff Parish Relations Committee and advised the Committee that they had several options. The Committee could “move on”, i.e., accepting that grievances were duly lodged, or pursue internal church or legal action by filing a formal complaint with the bishop’s office... The Committee did not take any further internal church or legal action. In response, Plaintiff, by and through new representatives, did not accept this decision and decided to separate from the UMC.... Plaintiff believes that the hierarchical bodies of the UMC did not reach a just resolution of their claims and therefore, seeks relief in a secular court. Plaintiff’s recent disenchantment with the UMC does not warrant secular court review in contravention of the longstanding jurisprudence of this state’s Appellate Division, its sister states, and the Supreme Court of the United States